DISCLAIMER:

These summaries of case decisions are intended for informational purposes only. They are not intended to be interpretations of the law, nor do they encompass the subtleties of each case. Therefore, reference to the original text is indispensable.



Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Lisa Conserve's Summary of "Commmonwealth v. Anestal"

Commonwealth v. Anestal
463 Mass. 655
Summary


         The defendant appealed her conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation of stabbing and killing her boyfriend.  Although the defendant admitted to stabbing her boyfriend, she argued that she should not be held criminally responsible for her actions because she lacked the substantial capacity at the time of the stabbing due to her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
            First, the defendant argued that the trial judge erred in admitting, on multiple occasions, prejudicial prior bad acts as evidence.  Prior bad act evidence is generally restricted to the purposes of “common scheme, pattern of operation, absence of accident or mistake, identity, intent, or motive.” This case did not fall under any of these purposes. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that permitting evidence that the DSS had a complaint against the defendant for allegedly abusing her son added no probative information and only heightened the risk of unfair prejudice. The purported reason for allowing such evidence was its basis for the testimony of an expert. There was no proof, however, that the expert did indeed use these prior acts to form her opinion and the prosecutor simply extracted the details of the incidents through questions. Furthermore, the lengthy and detailed recitation of the incident from two DSS case workers served no new probative value and only prejudiced the defendant. For those reasons the admission of evidence regarding the DSS case was palpable error.
            Second, the defendant argued that the judge erred in declining to give an instruction as to the excessive use of force in self-defense, which mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter.  For a defendant to be entitled to use deadly force, as she did against her boyfriend, she must have a reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm and a reasonable belief that no other means would suffice to prevent such harm.  The court concluded that the evidence warranted an instruction about excessive force in self-defense and if the jury so found, the defendant was entitled to a verdict of manslaughter. 
            Third, the defendant maintained that the judge’s instructions regarding reasonable provocation in regards to the defendant’s history of past abuse... Case law stated that not only is the introduction of evidence of a defendant’s past instances of abuse allowed, but such evidence should be permitted to establish the reasonableness of the defendant’s apprehension that death or serious bodily injury was imminent.   The defendant’s expert testified that her past abuse might have been triggered in the encounter with her boyfriend putting her in a dissociative state when she stabbed him.  The court decided that the defendant’s record of past physical, mental, and sexual abuse was relevant to the consideration of whether the defendant was in fear of serious injury or death.  Therefore, declining to give Given the numerous errors, the defendant’s conviction for murder in the first degree was reversed, the verdict was set aside, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Written 7/22/2013